Not yet. We only do that with the president. We have checks of term limits so we dont have a king. Why we dont have the same for the senate is beyond me. The power an incumbant has today is almost tyranical. Look at what the.kennedy family has done.

I was referring to direct democracies, not the United States.

If you consider the US to be 'tyrannical' in its domestic affairs, you're deluding yourself. Historically the individual states have been moreso than the Federal government.

Additionally, term limits were only introduced in the mid-20th century.

Which is why you don't cater to popular opinion. You take it as a factor, not the end all decision maker.

Except that is how candidates sell themselves and get votes. Most politicians aren't there to be great leaders they are there to be ideologues and pass their specific agendas. Which isn't always a bad thing unless it is an ideology that takes property or forces ideology upon others... which is the ideology of Republicans and Democrats.

The power of an incumbent? I fail to see how a single incumbent has a great deal more political power than any other congressman. The primary problem with a lack of term limits is the focus that congressmen put on appeasing special interests groups and the majority, as well as diverting time and energy to fundraising and political campaigns, as opposed to doing their job and running the country as an impartial representative of the people.

Incumbents generally have an advantage in American politics, for a variety of reasons. For example, the re-election rate for Representatives at the Federal level is around 90%.

And the problem with Congress is precisely that Representatives focus too much on their constitutents rather than the interests of the state as a whole. The US is dying of democracy, essentially.

... as opposed to doing their job and running the country as an impartial representative of the people.

This is the worst part. I was just saying this to some coworkers yesterday, I don't understand why Congress can't act like adults. In my company, if I spent all my time arguing with people and not actually coming up with solutions to the problems we face, I'd have been fired a long time ago.

Hey, assholes, fix the problems. Stop hardlining and stonewalling and doing nothing. Sit down, compromise, and figure out how to fix the problems. If they weren't so concerned with their own reelections, and worried about all the money and supporters and "who they owe" then maybe something would get done.

I wonder how many younger folks get into Congress bright eyes and full of enthusiasm, then get run over by the old-timers and told how to act and how to fall into line.

This is the worst part. I was just saying this to some coworkers yesterday, I don't understand why Congress can't act like adults. In my company, if I spent all my time arguing with people and not actually coming up with solutions to the problems we face, I'd have been fired a long time ago.

Hey, assholes, fix the problems. Stop hardlining and stonewalling and doing nothing. Sit down, compromise, and figure out how to fix the problems. If they weren't so concerned with their own reelections, and worried about all the money and supporters and "who they owe" then maybe something would get done.

I wonder how many younger folks get into Congress bright eyes and full of enthusiasm, then get run over by the old-timers and told how to act and how to fall into line.

Again, the problem is that Representatives represent their constituents -too well-.

The power of an incumbent? I fail to see how a single incumbent has a great deal more political power than any other congressman. The primary problem with a lack of term limits is the focus that congressmen put on appeasing special interests groups and the majority, as well as diverting time and energy to fundraising and political campaigns, as opposed to doing their job and running the country as an impartial representative of the people.

Thats what i mean. If your always running for reelection you wont make tough decisions or concessions. Its all about keeping your votes up vs doing what the people need. You may not be liked but i would excpect the person i elect to make the tough choices but they dont.

My point is, I think that for most of the world republic and democracy are basically synonyms. At least they are in my country, which is a republic by name, but Americans would call it a democracy I guess.

The thing is that a republic can still be a dictatorship, North Korea and China for example. The same way monarchies can be a democracy, like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, UK and most if not European countries that are still monarchies.

Democracy is the worst form of government . . . . except for all the others.

~Winston Churchill

And we have to keep in mind that most democracies and republics were actually set up in a way to give the illusion of power to the masses while keeping control of true political power in the hands of those who already had it. Everyone gets a vote . . . . except for criminals, people of the wrong race, women, etc, etc. Things like the electoral college were designed to keep power out of the hands of the people, because, let's face it, the people are ignorant sheep that would ignore the interests of the rich and powerful.

All democratic systems are flawed, that doesn't mean they don't work. They just don't work very well. Party politics, special interest groups, etc all color and twist the functionality of government in ways that act against the best interests of the nation/people. Similarly, what the people want isn't always in their best interests.

You should have fled long ago, everyone knows that direct democracy never works except for a short time, especially in a country with four official languages :P (obvious sarcasm)

---------- Post added 2013-01-04 at 08:27 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Crysthalica

The thing is that a republic can still be a dictatorship, North Korea and China for example. The same way monarchies can be a democracy, like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, UK and most if not European countries that are still monarchies.

This needs to be stickied, for all those people oblivious to the meaning of the words "republic" and "democracy".

The thing is that a republic can still be a dictatorship, North Korea and China for example. The same way monarchies can be a democracy, like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, UK and most if not European countries that are still monarchies.

I don't get it. In China and NK people don't get to choose anything. How is it republic then?
I know their governments thought it's neat to call themselves republics, but they are dictatorships.